Summary
In Commonwealth v.Williams, 468 Pa. 357, 362 A.2d 244 (1976), the Supreme Court made a detailed review of these cases and clarified the state of the law in this area. It is now clear that it is constitutional for the trier of fact to draw a permissible inference of guilty knowledge from the unexplained (or unsatisfactorily explained) possession of recently stolen goods.
Summary of this case from Com. v. MurrayOpinion
June 10, 1969.
September 11, 1969.
Criminal Law — Sentence — Larceny — Receiving stolen goods — Merger of offenses — Sentences on both counts — Exercise by appellate court of inherent power to amend — Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 427.
1. Section 24 of the Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 427, specifically authorizes the joinder in one indictment of a count charging receiving stolen goods with a count charging larceny of the goods.
2. After a verdict of guilty on an indictment charging receiving stolen goods and larceny of the goods, a general sentence is proper if one of the counts in the indictment will sustain it.
3. Where an indictment charges receiving stolen goods and larceny of the goods, a separate and distinct sentence should not be imposed on each count.
4. In this case, in which it appeared that defendants were jointly indicted on a bill charging in three counts the offenses of burglary, larceny, and receiving stolen goods; that each defendant was found guilty on all three counts; and that each defendant was sentenced on each charge, the sentences to be consecutive; it was Held that the trial judge erred in imposing sentences on the charges both of larceny and receiving the goods stolen; the appellate court did not remit the record to the court below but exercised its inherent power to amend, the judgments of sentence imposed upon the charges of receiving stolen goods were vacated, and in all other respects the judgments of sentence were affirmed.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 819 to 821, inclusive, Oct. T., 1968, from judgments of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Clearfield County, Sept. T., 1965, No. 28, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Harry Phillips et al. Judgments on charge of receiving stolen goods vacated; all other judgments affirmed.
Petition for post-conviction relief.
Orders entered granting leave to file post-trial motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, nunc pro tunc, orders by CHERRY, P.J. Post-trial motions dismissed. Defendants appealed.
James A. Naddeo, for appellant.
Ervin S. Fennell, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, with him John K. Reilly, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Argued June 10, 1969.
We are here concerned with three direct appeals nunc pro tunc from judgments of sentence entered in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Clearfield County. As a result of the felonious entry, September 14, 1965, of the Lithuanian Club in the Borough of Osceola Mills, Harry Phillips, Vaughn William Phillips and Richard Lee Shirey were jointly indicted, October 25, 1965, on Bill No. 28 September Sessions 1965, charging in three counts the offenses of burglary, larceny and receiving stolen goods. After separate jury trials, each appellant was found guilty on all three counts. Harry Phillips was sentenced to a term of two to ten years on the burglary charge, two to five years on the larceny charge, and two to five years on the receiving stolen goods charge, these sentences to be consecutive. Vaughn William Phillips was sentenced to a term of one to ten years on the burglary charge, one to five years on the larceny charge and one to three years on the receiving stolen goods charge, the sentence for larceny to be consecutive to that for burglary, and the sentence for receiving stolen goods to be concurrent with the burglary sentence. Richard Lee Shirey was sentenced to a term of one to ten years on the burglary charge, two to five years on the larceny charge, and one to five years on the receiving stolen goods charge, these sentences to be consecutive.
These appeals raise primarily the same issue, namely, may a defendant be convicted and sentenced on charges both of larceny and receiving the goods stolen. The trial judge instructed the jury in each case that the defendant could be found guilty on all three counts, and no exception was taken to the charge. Our painstaking examination of this voluminous original record has revealed only an inadvertent error in connection with the sentences imposed. We will not remit the record to the court below but shall exercise our inherent power to amend. Cf. Commonwealth v. Downer, 161 Pa. Super. 339, 53 A.2d 897; Commonwealth ex rel. Rouzer v. Claudy, 178 Pa. Super. 106, 113 A.2d 321.
Section 24 of the Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 427, 19 P.S. 411, specifically authorizes the joinder in one indictment of a count charging receiving stolen goods with a count charging larceny of the goods. After a verdict of guilty on such an indictment, a general sentence is proper if one of the counts in the indictment will sustain it: Commonwealth ex rel. Scasserra v. Keenan, 175 Pa. Super. 636, 106 A.2d 843. This court has frequently refused to disturb judgments of sentence for larceny, or receiving stolen goods, where the verdict found the defendant guilty on both counts, provided that sentence was imposed on only one count: Commonwealth v. Bitler, 133 Pa. Super. 268, 2 A.2d 493. A separate and distinct sentence should not be imposed on each count, Commonwealth v. Samson, 76 Pa. Super. 226. As these appellants were sentenced on both counts they have just grounds for complaint. Cf. Commonwealth v. Holgate, 63 Pa. Super. 246.
The judgments of sentence imposed upon the charges of receiving stolen goods are vacated. In all other respects the judgments of sentence are affirmed.
It should perhaps be noted that it was not improper to impose separate sentences on the burglary and larceny counts: Commonwealth ex rel. Comer v. Claudy, 174 Pa. Super. 494, 102 A.2d 227.